War Of The Worlds Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
They're already here.
This Summer, the last war on Earth won't be started by humans.
Ray Ferrier is a dock worker who is finishing a night of work in the morning, because he works the night shift. But when he gets home his young daughter Rachel and teenage son Robbie are staying with him at his house in Bayonne, New Jersey, while his pregnant ex-wife Mary Anne and her new husband Tim visit her parents in Boston for the weekend. But then the unthinkable and, ultimately, the unexpected happens to him in an extraordinary sense! Witnessing, and barely escaping the horror, first-hand, it's up to Ray to protect his two kids from terrorist and races up to Boston before one of them gets murdered by a large tripod machine in its path!
| Tom Cruise | Ray Ferrier |
| Tim Robbins | Harlan Ogilvy |
| Miranda Otto | Mary Ann |
| Justin Chatwin | Robbie Ferrier |
| Dakota Fanning | Rachel Ferrier |
| Rick Gonzalez | Vincent |
| Yul Vazquez | Julio |
| Lenny Venito | Manny the Mechanic |
| Lisa Ann Walter | Bartender (Sheryl) |
| Ann Robinson | Grandmother |
| Gene Barry | Grandfather |
| David Alan Basche | Tim |
| Roz Abrams | Herself |
| Michael Brownlee | TV Reporter, Osaka |
| Camillia Sanes | News Producer |
| Steven Spielberg |
6.60 out of 10 (83334 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Good movie, and thats from someone who wanted a "period" piece.
posted on 31 Aug 2009Maybe SPOILERS!!!!!I am not a critic, so don't expect much useless verbosity. I like science fiction, and I really like the old science fiction stories. So I really wanted a line by line telling of the H.G. Wells classic. What I got was a good updating of the story, but without the cool meteorites or mention of our Red neighbor. Some of the people reviewing this movie seem to want a in depth, personal, heart wrenching story...and were disappointed by a fast paced, at times creepy...and a few laughs thrown in for good measure movie?The BIG MAJOR complaint I have is it focused more on the main characters fight against the invaders than mankind's struggle, can you say "Thunderchild", tho seeing Tom Cruise close to a big propeller has it's merits ;)Now that Mr. Spielberg has shot a old scifi classic, I wish he would tackle H.P Lovecraft, "The Mountains of Madness" would be a great place to start.All in all, worth your money, but your kids may not sleep for a week...
Great Beginning, Great Middle, Weak Ending
posted on 29 Aug 2009My entire comment will be about the ending of the film, so if you haven't seen it and don't want to know what happens, stop now.Let me start off by saying that my mouth was open the entire time. The effects and action in "War of the Worlds" were so amazing, that I found it hard to believe that it wasn't really happening. Seeing the Tripods from a distance gave me the chills, it was amazing.But thats about where the amazement stops.Like any movie of this genre, it revolves around your typical protagonist, usually a male who has a bad relationship with his children and/or wife, then when the world starts coming to an end, he realizes what they mean to him, blah, blah, blah...unfortunately, War of the Worlds falls under this category. It wasn't as bad as most other films, in fact, some of the moments between Dakota Fanning and Tom Cruise were hilarious, like when the lightning storms first arrive and the two of them hide together under the table.However, my biggest beef with this film (and that is something I regret to say, because I have been looking forward to this for a long time), but my problem with this film is the ending.The Narrator (done by Morgon Freeman) tells us that the aliens, who have been planning this attack for 1,000,000 years, died because of bacteria, the most abundant life form on Earth. Over the course of 1,000,000 years, these creatures learn to adapt to our oxygen, learn our traits, and yet they cannot figure out that the most abundant life-form on Earth will kill them. It's like the problem with "Signs," where the aliens one weakness was water, yet they come to invade a planet made of 2/3 water.
Meanders everywhere!
posted on 29 Aug 2009Having never seen the original, my POV is going to be based on the movie itself, not its history. And my negative review is in no way tarnished by Cruise's strange behavior. Cruise and Jacko are probably brothers separated at birth but don't know it, but that's another issue.I'm not sure who's to blame for this movie. Perhaps Spielberg had too many yes-men around him (or yes-women, let's be inclusive here). Perhaps the original WOTW is a lot like this and Spielberg liked it so much, this was meant to be his tribute. Whatever. This one stinks. Tributes shouldn't stink.This movie had potential (and lotsa hype) but was utterly ruined by the "I'm-a-bad-father" subplot that the movie kept diverting to all throughout the film. Spielberg poured on the syrup at these points and it really did make me roll my eyes after awhile. The scene on the hill where the brother, for reasons that were not at all explained, just -had- to see what was going on on the other side of the hill actually made me squirm. His line about "if you love me you'll let me go" was straight out of the cornfields. Awful.Dakota did a decent job but this certainly pales in comparison to other movies I've seen her in, like Man on Fire. As usual, Dakota and her brother play the smart-ass kids to the inept father. Never seen that before, have we Steve? Turn on the TV and there's hundreds of shows with characters like that already on.Don't get me started on the basement scene. Completely unnecessary and went on WAY too long. The bit with the proboscis was just completely silly. Spielberg's version of horror/suspense I guess. One minute the aliens are out there tilling up the earth on a global scale with a horrific ferocity, the next minute they send this little wormy proboscis thing down into the basement to ever-so-gently poke around. Ooh, be careful, don't touch anything! Not to mention Farmer Ted thinking he's going to kill these things with a SHOTGUN of all things. Tim Robbins never could do scenes well with high levels of emotion, and he does it again here. Anytime he has to show intense emotion, the corners of his mouth curl down in a frown and that's as far as it goes. Like clockwork.When the ship starts to come out of the ground, and even after it has come completely out of the ground, the people around it largely stay in the same spot and are STANDING THERE STARING AT IT. A three-legged behemoth... just came out of the ground from nowhere... 200+ feet tall with arms for days... and these geniuses are standing around waiting to see what it will do next? Only when it starts putting the smack down on everyone do they seem to give up any hope that it's E.T. and start to run away. Did they expect some sort of welcoming party instead?The idea that thousands of those things, as huge as they are, could lie dormant under the ground without being detected. To accept that you would have to perform far more than suspension of disbelief and go straight for the alternate universe explanation. Pure laziness if you ask me, like Spielberg didn't give a damn about providing a plausible background for these creatures.Lots and lots of little events that dead-end into nowhere. The friends who miss the boat. Who are they? Why should we care that they didn't make it? The reporters who are scrounging around for scraps of food as though they haven't eaten in weeks when the aliens just showed up LESS THAN A DAY AGO. We care that her sidekick is deaf why? The airplane. Why is it such a huge deal that one has crashed? Their minivan must have a protective shield of its own because the neighborhood-razing plane didn't put a scratch on their getaway car. Oh look! There's a neat little path for them to drive the minivan out of this mess.For a bunch of alien invaders, talk about poor planning.... They sent waves of tripods to select locations and no ships to other locations, thereby offering people a place to run away to. And if they've "been watching us" for so long, wouldn't they have figured out beforehand that there are things on our planet that will kill them? Apparently not. They're smart enough to build these monstrous craft but not smart enough to build leak-free suits (or any suits for that matter) in case there's some icky bugs that might kill them? Brilliant!Ah anyway, I'd like my money back please. What a stinker! Spielberg blew it with this one by once again making the meat and potatoes of the film take a back seat to some sort of dysfunctional family crisis resolution. If Cruise had been the only main character, if his character had been more of a hero-type, if they'd thrown out the whole family bit, this would've been a lot better. But they didn't.Did Steve just give up on this movie at one point and say to hell with it, this movie's too far gone to achieve redemption? It certainly looks that way. This film doesn't even look like a finished product. This looks like a whole bunch of plots thrown together before a good editor comes along and puts together a cohesive film.
Worst Movie Of The Year
posted on 29 Aug 2009Okay, the kid's acting wasn't bad, but other than that, there's nothing to like about this movie. I laughed out loud when Cruise's character placed a mirror in front of the creature and it actually fooled the creature into leaving. Come on! These are supposed to be brilliant aliens? And they don't know the mirror trick? And we didn't see it coming? And oh gosh, the ending? I thought for a second I'd dozed off, because all of a sudden it was simply over, without any resolution other than the kid being reunited with her mother. I am tired of these cheesy movies and I cannot believe that the viewing audiences don't see through all this crap.
I would rather have paid $10 to close my eyes for 2 hours.
posted on 27 Aug 2009A complete and utter disaster...a predictable plot centering around a family you don't care about.Tom Cruise gives his typical over-acted performance. Someone please let him know that he's not 21 anymore.Spielberg again tries to dredge up the anguish he experienced during his parents' divorce as he did in E.T., both Jurassic Park films, Catch Me if You Can, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It is completely out of place in this film, and does nothing to accentuate the characters or plot line. We get it Mr. Spielberg, you didn't like it when your parents split up. You're like 60 now, get over it! The ending to this film had to be the worst part. Just imagine the anger and disappointment you experienced at the end of "The Village," "Signs," "A.I." and "Eyes Wide Shut," all rolled into one. Not to mention that the Alien vehicles look ridiculous and their weapons are totally stupid.The film was a complete failure on all levels. An obvious attempt by Producers who are out of touch with the world to capitalize on Spielberg's talent. David Koepp should never write another script... He already ruined one SPIDERMAN movie, does he need to destroy Spielberg as well? And for god's sake, will someone tell Hollywood to stop shoving Dakota Fanning down my throat? The whole movie I was just hoping the aliens would kill her, or at the very least cut off her face or something. At least some kind of injury that would shut her up and stop her from looking so goddamn annoying.Spielberg needs to seriously rethink his career. This is the fifth in a string of films undeserving of the Spielberg label. These action-adventure movies are beyond him, and he needs to get back to doing what he did in Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List; making thought-provoking, emotionally charged, entertaining, groundbreaking films. Not these bubble-gum pop flicks that psychos play in the background while they molest children. He is going down a path of easily marketable, profit-oriented scripts... becoming the Darth Vader of film directors. At least George Lucas managed to salvage what little dignity he had left with Revenge of the Sith,... I'm hoping Spielberg will follow his example.
Weak just weak, irresolute even.
posted on 27 Aug 2009There are some spoilers in here but much like the film they are vague. I'm a big Spielberg fan, who isn't, but come on! This movie had some good moments, but they were few and far between. Yes the original was great, the book great but having only one an A story to follow that builds up this huge enemy and their immense power and then tagging on a bunch of un-established conclusions in the last ten minutes to wrap up the film sucks. I'm sorry it just does. I had to explain to those I was with at the theater why the aliens were dead! And the son just suddenly appears back at the house in Boston, "hey Dad, remember that big ball of flame that killed everyone well not me, I made it home on my own, don't ask how, just accept it". Plus I would have been a bit more frightened of the psycho in the basement if he didn't start out with the cheesy B movie -I'm frightening so I'll step into this spooky light and stand here for an unnatural amount of time to establish that fact- shot. I'm all for that kind of thing in a 'Sin City' vibe or a ' Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' feel. It was a shot that didn't fit for me. But who am I right. Not Steven Spielberg, but this movie isn't either. The film struggled to get me to suspend my disbelief and as soon as it did it gave me the (expletive-est) ending ever. I could care less about Tom Cruise, I love knowing that a Spielberg film will never disappoint, will be a complete well paced story. I left this movie feeling robbed. Fine, be true to the original story but please, please, be honest to the audience above all. This was a bad movie.
Best Movie I've Ever Seen!!!
posted on 27 Aug 2009Those who say this movie is "horrible", I don't think they were paying attention to the movie. This is "Definitely" Tom Cruises best performance!!! The Tripods were Absolutely Chilling and frightening to see. I felt like I was actually experiencing the things in the movie. I have a feeling that the events that happened in this movie will happen someday in the far/near future!!! Those who are into Sci-Fi films should definitely see this thrilling movie. You should see this movie while it's still in the theater, because the bigger and louder the film is the better it is!!! Again to the people who seen and disliked the movie, I suggest you go see it again, and pay attention this time.
A waste of some nice special effects
posted on 27 Aug 2009A somewhat promising start quickly degenerates into a disjointed mess. I won't even mention how difficult it is to accept the perfectly built Cruise (he takes his shirt off in the film) as a blue-collar slob, because this movie has plenty of other problems. What should be an epic film about, well, a War of the Worlds, instead becomes a terribly melodramatic soap opera about Cruise and his misfit kids. And some really annoying kids they are, constantly doing the stupidest thing possible at the moment. I like Dakota Fanning, but I quickly started wishing that the kids would just get killed so we could see more of the aliens. Instead, the film rapidly abandons its one interesting and emotionally impacting scene (the one where Cruise and family deal with the crowd of people) and we spend practically the entire second half stuck in a dingy basement with a histrionic Fanning, a muttering Tim Robbins, and a panic-stricken Cruise, punctuated by a woefully tedious 'hide from the alien tentacle' scene that felt about 30 minutes long.The movie also badly fails to get across any sense of global danger or devastation. There are only a few very brief scenes of the military trying to fight the tripods, and except for rumors and conjecture from a few random characters, we never have any idea of what is happening in the rest of the world. The film ends with the cryptic narrated statement that "No one lives or dies in vain," but what in the world that has to do with the rest of the film escapes me. Perhaps there was a deep message here that I was too bored to notice, but I seriously doubt it.The plot holes are also innumerable and blatantly obvious. I won't be specific as to avoid spoilers, but no one noticed huge spaceships buried under the ground for millions of years? Where in the world is the aliens' 'special lightning' COMING from? How does Cruise's car constantly survive unscratched when everything around it is being destroyed? How could the aliens have studied the planet for millions of years and yet apparently know almost nothing about it? This film started out merely average and flawed, but when Cruise and Fanning get to the basement, it becomes downright dull. As cheesy and overacted as it was, I seriously believe that Independence Day was still a far better alien invasion film than this one.
No Drama Whatsoever - Emotionless
posted on 27 Aug 2009This is a monumental waste of $3.95. I kept watching this movie waiting to feel something... nothing. Spielberg has (long) lost his touch for drama! The ending was a relief. Some scenes are very faithful to the original. (It didn't have to be - it just had to be a good movie, but it wasn't even that.) There are nods to other scifi's like Godzilla - but Spielberg had to borrow the drama in that scene to get some drama into his own. As I said, he's definitely lost his touch.((In fact if you watch the original you FEEL something - you will care about the characters, the people, the city, THE WORLD! You will fear the aliens... etc. Watch the original. It will become - if it hasn't already - an American classic. This thing will be forgotten next season. I'll never watch it again.))While watching this I thought to myself: "Tom Cruise cannot act - at all!" And then I thought... "well, how do I know that?" I knew I needed some piece of evidence to prove my point.THEN Tim Robbins appeared (he plays 'Harlan Ogilvy'). I immediately saw what a real actor can do with any role. I use to think I could act ... seemed pretty easy. No way - no how. Watch Tim Robbins. THAT'S ACTING! Mr. Robbins made me forget he is Tim Robbins... Mr. Cruise ... well, he is very attractive.((PS: about Mr. Cruise at this point: during the movie in my heart I groaned "has he done anything that is good/worth watching?" and after the movie ... I channel surfed and saw "Jerry McGuire." He was good in that. But if you watch the "money" scene, you will see that his heart (ironic - like the footballer he is an agent for), is not in it. Nonetheless, when that is on I usually watch it because it is a good movie, sans Mr. Cruise in the leading role.))_Double_major_props_ (kudos) to the special effects crew! Holy mackerel! Special Effects will rule scifi movies from now on. Since there are no talented scifi directors anymore (Kubrik blew us away with "2001: A Space Odyssey") no one has a sense of drama, then no one will be around to make the movie worth watching - sans the special effects crew.Which reminds me of a 100% computer animated "special effects" movie worth watching: "Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within" (get past the "gaia" psychobabble and you'll be OK.) I "predict" that one day CGI will rule the entertainment world! (NOTE: "Ark" is not as good as... hec, it doesn't even come close to "FF:TSW" but it is all CGI and is a good watch. (The animation on the people is so weak that it detracts from being any better than just a good watch.)Back to "War of the Worlds" - Steven Spielberg ... I don't like his movies anymore or ever since "Raiders" and "Close Encounters." (Did you see his "AI"? - all unemotional detached meaningless empty ennui pap - bleh. I couldn't care less for all the characters and care even less for this movie. I started to read the short story this is based upon... totally not like the movie and almost as boring, but a better read than the movie is a watch. Rent/buy "Caddy Shack"!) Why is this movie so unemotional? I think it's b/c it's 2005 - I mean it's just a sign of the times - modern man and all that.What I am trying to say is that the Bible says that in the end (meaning when the Lord is getting ready to return) people will be lovers of themselves, but have no love in them. So this to me is a sign of the beginning of the end. People are just too withdrawn from reality; breast fed on the TV signal from birth till death people have lost touch with what it means to be alive. Now they only go to the movies. I remember seeing a few times ... on TV ... when a newscaster asked a local witness about something that just happened: "how did you feel?" they reply: "you know, like that time in that (movie)."It isn't the movies, it isn't even Hollywood - it's people. Did the TV turn itself on? No, we all did. I watch fewer and fewer TV shows nowadays. I watch movies and the Discovery Channel. Maybe one day I will have the strength to turn it all off and just listen to the wind. ...funny, and I use to laugh at "country folk." May God teach us all His ways... in Jesus name, amen.-ZafoidPS: 1/10 (since there are no negative scores)-Z
Thrilling, Breathtaking, left me speechless...
posted on 25 Aug 2009I went to see this movie with pretty low expectations. I only really wanted to go because fo the brilliant Dakota Fanning. So I took a friend and bought plenty of candy to keep me busy. Well I only three pieces of chocolate covered raisins while watching the movie.This movie was brilliant, the beginning was perfect, the middle was so exciting and thrilling and then ending was simple and precise. Dakota Fanning I believe is the greatest actress. She was unbelievable in this movie along with every other movie she had been in. I truly respect and admire her.The cg was brilliant, there were probably only 2 times that I actually even noticed it! Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful! I juts didn't understand one part, in the beginning after the storm, all the cars, lights, phones, watches and tons of others stopped. But the video cameras and cameras were still working!! I didn't understand that...but still: I LOVED THAT MOVIE!!!! please go see it!!!!!!
a bad surprise!
posted on 25 Aug 2009I was so excited when I first saw the trailers. Today me and a good friend of mine went to this movie and after the first 30 minutes our opinions to this movie was changing from awesome to awful step by step. I thought Spielberg would come up with something like a more serious and threatening version of independence day. Okay this movie is kept serious, but it's story has too many illogical points and you don't see much of the fight between the human soldiers (actually you only see the Americans) and the Alien "walkers". Most annoying element of this movie was the girl Rachel. Me and my friend were wishing that she would be.... by the Aliens. I mean, hey! the title is "War of the worlds" and not "desperate family on the way to Boston while the Aliens are attacking". When the movie ended most of the audience were showing disappointment and frustration. I wonder what Spielberg was thinking when he did this movie. Better watch ID4 and Signs at one evening than watching this garbage!
Proof Steven S. hates you
posted on 25 Aug 2009As it was too hot to enjoy an afternoon outside the family decided to take in WOTW in the coolness of the theater. Unfotunately the air-conditioning was more enjoyable than this inane, disjointed, insult of a film. The best part was the trailer for the upcoming King Kong. I didn't expect the film to be on the scale of Close Encounters gone evil as many reviewers had implied but by 2005 every director, especially Speilburg, should realize even the least sophisticated audience can spot the massive continuity problems of this movie. Therefore it stands to reason he didn't care.Evidently there were tight scheduling constraints for Cruise & Speilburg & the film was shot & edited almost simultaneously (Speilburg's 1st all digital shoot evidently) in a third of the time he regularly takes. It shows.As Speilburg is a vocal advocate to preserve the use of film in movie making, perhaps this is his attempt to sabotage the all digital revolution. One can only wonder.
Classic Spielburg Popcorn Flick
posted on 25 Aug 2009This is the summer popcorn flick you've been waiting for! Overall, I'd have to say the original War of the Worlds is still one of my favorite alien movies but Spielburg proves he can do suspense, horror, and action again in this well made remake. The legendary director also makes sure he has plenty of homages to the original film but there are a few surprising twists as well. He also does something that few other directors do: he has the actors act like real people. Dakota Fanning screams in fear like a ten-year-old would, Tom Cruise is a bit of an asshole jaded father, and Tim Robbins plays a man whose gone over the edge because of the invasion. There are some tense moments and all the classic Spielburg camera shots are present which only make it better. The CGI is also well done on the aliens and I'd say it's worth the price of a movie ticket if you enjoy this type of flick.
Spielberg's Bad ETs
posted on 25 Aug 2009Steven Spielberg has always been known for his optimistic sci-fi flicks, such as Close Encounters and E.T., where nice aliens befriend humans and develop very special connections. In War of the Worlds, there's no such thing: this time, mankind has to run for its survival, as they're followed by tripods ready to incinerate them. It's like Mars Attacks!, only a lot more serious and much, much darker.At the center of the story is Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), a single dad who's trying to be friends with his kids (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin). Too bad Earth is being attacked at the same time, which means he has to postpone the "I love you, guys" speeches and go for a more traditional, but efficient, "Let's get the hell outta here!". It's all a long escape, with visual references to other Spielberg movies like Jaws, Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan.War of the Worlds is unusually dark to come from the director of Indiana Jones, and it's certainly his scariest opus since a certain water-related shocker from 1975. Like Alfred Hitchcock did with The Birds, Spielberg refuses to explain why the ETs are invading our planet. It's our reaction to that apparently pointless event and our excessive fear (the 9/11 parallels are quite obvious) that interests him. Okay, so not telling us why the war is about to begin is a wise choice when it comes to adding suspense, but it also leads to a serious plot hole towards the end of the movie, albeit one you might not notice immediately because of Spielberg's ability to keep you amazed the whole time.Alongside the dread, another remarkable thing about War of the Worlds is the performances that two actors give: Fanning is the usual child wonder, Chatwin and Miranda Otto (who plays Ray's ex-wife) are OK and Tim Robbins is perfectly creepy and creepily perfect as the paranoid Ogilvy, who appears briefly halfway through the film. But it's Tom Cruise who deserves more attention for his very convincing portrayal of a Normal Guy: Ray Ferrier is probably as far from Ethan Hunt as he will ever get.So, apart from a few weaknesses in the plot, War of the Worlds is a riveting blockbuster, another great Spielberg/Cruise collaboration after the superb Minority Report. Rumor has it they're planning to make a couple of other movies together (a Western would be one of the options). If they're gonna be as good as the two they've already done, it looks like a very promising cinematic future.
It Wasn't A War It Was An Extermination
posted on 23 Aug 2009The movie started out with the tag line "With envious eyes they watched and slowly drew their plans against us." Earlier this week I heard Tim Robbins who played the mysterious man in the basement (Ogilvy). Robbins speculated that what Spielberg was really doing was condemning our attempted extermination of Iraq. So, with that in mind that was the way I viewed the film. To me it brought everything together. Just maybe this film was from the viewpoint of the Iraqis in Fallugia as we destroyed their city. The "War of The Worlds" just might be the most important political film of our time.Nature finally rewards the residents of earth, those who have lived with nature through millenniums of evolution. Nature destroys those who slowly drew their plans against us. Wow! Thank you Steven Spielberg.
Spielberg pays the bills
posted on 23 Aug 2009After a few years of making his own 'personal projects' like Catch Me If You Can, and The Terminal, Spielberg decided that this year would be a return to the 'event' movie. What better popcorn entertainment could he choose than HG Welles' War of the Worlds, a book which is beloved by sci-fi fans the world over, and has been blessed with many other beloved adaptations over the years, from the radio-broadcasts to the TV series, from the 1950s movie, to a prog-rock album. Even Independence Day was nothing but War of the Worlds with a different name. But, what could Spielberg add which no other adaptation has offered so far? Indeed, why bother remaking it when the 50s film is still a classic now? Well…why not? In this new version, set no longer in Victorian England, but instead in modern day USA, Tom Cruise plays a dock-worker named Ray who, against his wishes, is dumped with the kids by his ex-wife whilst she and her new man go to visit relatives. Ray is far from an ideal father, and in fact can be described as a terrible parent. He has no idea about either of his kids, from the teenage rebel Robbie (Justin Chatwin), to young daughter Rachael (Dakota Fanning), and is not looking forward to spending time with them. Things are about to get worse for him as he witnesses the initial devastation of multiple lightning bolts, and the awakening of long dormant war machines which immediately begin destroying all civilization. From there, the film follows Ray and his kids as they try to escape the carnage, throwing them from one situation to another as the world around them erupts. "Is it terrorists?" is the post 9/11 cry. Nope, it is much worse! This isn't the only War of the Worlds film this year, with a low budget film doing a faithful adaptation due out on DVD soon (set in Victorian England). However this is the most high profile. I haven't really been excited about the film, and went in expecting a typical Spielberg popcorn-flick, much akin to Jurassic Park. The film didn't let me down, and I found myself enjoying it throughout as one set piece led to another. Spielberg has littered the film with his usual shticks, from the dysfunctional family, rebellious youth, to the blue collar hero in Ray, but these shticks are used to simply thrust us from one effects shot to another.The effects on offer are truly amazing, putting the cartoon fluffy Sith CGI to serious shame. When you consider that Sith spent 3 years on the effects, and War spent 9 months, it makes it even more amazing that they can deliver such impact. From the rise of the tripod, to the cultivation of the weed, each glimpse of the well designed vessels, and aliens is worth the money spent on the ticket alone. Speaking of the weed, this is a nice inclusion into this version having not made it into other adaptations, giving a new slant to why the aliens are attacking (they are terraforming and harvesting).The cast do their parts admirably. Cruise is a sour swine at the start, but in the later scenes, particularly with Dakota Fanning, he starts to show compassion and becomes the Dad he was never able to be. Fanning is perhaps one of those rare occurrences of a young actress who can actually do her lines well! Tim Robbins is just, well, nuts as the slightly disturbed Oglivy. Spielberg uses all his directorial style to get the best out of each actor on screen, and to ensure the interaction between cast and CGI is seamless.None of this film is new, and those expecting more than just blockbuster entertainment are going to leave the screen disappointed.. There are touches of poignancy that raise the bar a little (a burning train has never chilled me so much), but in the end this is an adaptation of a great book that is, in itself, seriously flawed. The final act of the film suffers slightly by sticking to the book too much. Anyone who doesn't know how the story should skip to the next paragraph now……….OK, if you are still here, then you already know that the aliens are defeated by bacteria, such as the common cold. This was in the book, and it has been in every adaptation to date. It has never really satisfied as a cinematic or dramatic ending as, just as the film builds, and it looks like all hope is lost, it ends. Just like that. However, if Spielberg had altered this ending to make it more cinematic, he would have created an outcry! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.Nonetheless, despite the failings of the ending, the rest of the film is well paced, with no time being wasted in set up. If you just want some simple popcorn thrills, look no further. If you are after something a bit more substantial, and hated Jurassic Park, go elsewhere. This is Spielberg paying the bills before he picks his next personal project.
Seven Ulaaahs Out of Ten!
posted on 23 Aug 2009This film isn't perfect but it's well worth seeing.It's worth seeing for the tripods alone. They are extremely well realised and fairly scary given the limits of the 12A certificate. The first time appearance is particularly breath-taking. They were so good I could almost say we didn't see enough of them despite their prominent role.Overall the special effects are great. The film leans heavily on them of course, but they are always to used to advance the story or wind up the tension - they never completely overwhelm (Are you taking notes Mr George Lucas?) I also loved the nods to the 1970's musical version. I was about the age of Dakota Fanning's character when that first came out and it scared me witless!! There was the brilliantly done heat ray, the hiding from the alien appendage in the basement, the character who was a mix of the parson and the artilleryman. Looking back I'm surprised that the parson character wasn't included in this version - a man who believed the Martians were sent from Satan would have fitted nicely into an American version of War of the Worlds. Maybe Spielberg is just a bit too Establishment to have a poke at the Bible Belt ... never mind.Some people seem to have given this film a hard time. Maybe they're the lucky ones who haven't seen Revenge of the Sith! I did say this film wasn't perfect though and it lost points with me for these reasons -: 1) The ending was a bit sappy and pathetic. Why wasn't Boston wrecked like everywhere else? 2) Tom Cruise doesn't really convince as a tough labouring guy - he's way out of touch with that way of life. The acting all round seemed a touch wooden to me (But compared to Revenge of the Sith it's Oscar calibre) 3) Seeing the aliens out of their machines was rather unnecessary and slightly diminished them in my eyes. I wish they'd stayed in their scary tripods. 4) Lack of ulaaah's (but that's a personal thing!) When I left the cinema I wondered if anyone round George Lucas would have the courage to tell him that War of the Worlds was a thousand times better than Sith.
Best alien movie ever!
posted on 23 Aug 2009This movie is really a "must see" movie,cuz the special effects are really amazing and the story is from a first-person view so you see everything through Tom Cruise's eye's and I think that is really amazing for a Steven Spielburg movie.You might think that the movie isn't worth seeing cuz it is made in 12 week's but trust me this is a movie that you don't want to miss!!The story can be difficult for some people too understand but if you have seen the movie and later on you think back about it,then it all make's sense.The alien's in this movie are not cute and not fluffy or something like that,they really are slimy and have big eye's and some creep-ed me out.But the spaceships(Tripods they call them in the movie)are superb cuz they look so damn real and there weapons are of course laser-beams and stuff like that but they have other weapons.And I hope that my comment about this movie encouraged you to see this movie.Bye,bye for now...
Damn this movie sucked
posted on 23 Aug 2009I had high expectation for this movie. Went in to watch Spielberg get this H.G. Wells literary genius out through his special effects. Well i guess the special effects were good but the story, oh my god the story line sucked worse then Sharkboy and Lava girl which I happened to watch purely on accident. Well anyways if you miss this movie in the theaters please do not feel the need to rent or buy it on DVD. The story was very similar to the Independence Day (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum) but the way it was carried out proved to be a huge let down. It almost felt like Spielberg got tired of making this movie and put it together in a last ditch effort.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
Not bad at all
posted on 31 Aug 2009Spoilers below! OK, this is as good interpretation of the HG Wells book. It's far,far better than the first film attempt (with Gene Barry).Great effects, which for once don't get in the way of the story. I was expecting to see a Spielberg version of Independence Day, with lots of fighting against the invaders, kind of a "Saving Private Ryan vs the Martians".The alien machines were simply awesome,well realised and the suggestions of the battles in the distance, and the noises were very chilling.When the main character kills the Tim Robbins character, it shows the desperation that Tom has reached in order to keep his surviving child alive. This was surprisingly good characterisation by the writer, director, and I have to say, Tom Cruise.Worth having on DVD when it comes out.OK. Now for the gripes.1: The alien machines were planted millions of years ago in the ground. What, we never spotted them, none at all? Far fetched.2: The heat ray effects were great, and Spielberg showed us bodies flying apart, several times over.Seems like he enjoyed doing that. But when it came to showing the needle going in from the machines and sucking up the blood, he chickened out and decided to be discreet. Not that I was particularly interested in seeing blood being sucked out of people, but the reluctance to show it stood out like a sore thumb.3: There was no logical reason whatsoever for the son to survive. The audience had accepted that he died, but Spielberg just HAD to have the happy reunion in the end. Which denied the pathos that he had built up. The Tom Cruise character had shown he was flawed, was capable of making mistakes, and didn't have all the answers. Leaving the kid dead would just have been more real somehow. No explanation of how he survived, when the entire hilltop went up in masses of flame.Having said that, the scene where his son says "you have to let me go, I have to see this" was kind of like Tom accepting that his son was a grown man, and adult. Very poignant, but bringing the kid back? Dumb, and spoiled the poignancy.Ignore the flaws, go and see it and enjoy it.